Talk Elections

In say, MS in 2060, where the state is majority non-white and the legislature is also majority non-white but a compact white majority district can be drawn, would this have to happen under the VRA?

I dunno, does the VRA require a majority white district in DC?

To illustrate, I will present two different MS redistricting plans for the 2060s Map.

()

This map is the Democratic plan. It's clean, doesn't split any counties, and probably locks Republicans out of winning a seat in a D+8 state.

District 1 is the northern third of the state. It's 42% white and 47% black, 47% white and 47.4% black in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2060 (a good Democratic year) by 20 points, and has a D+7 PVI.

District 2 is the middle third of the state. It's 30% white and 61% black, 34% white and 61% in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 33 points, and has a D+16 PVI. Clearly safely D.

District 3 is the kicker. It's cleanly drawn but probably locks out Republicans. It's 45% white and 40% black and 51% white to 41% black in VAP, so it could be called a white VRA district. However, it also went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 9 points and is a D+1 district. It probably votes against white voter's candidate of choice, leaving a minority that is 39% of the state and 44% of the Voting Age Population with 0 districts.

()

And this map is the VRA plan proposed by the Republican minority in the legislature.

District 1 moves slightly to the left. It is 38% white and 53% black, and 42% white to 53% black in VAP. The Democratic presidential nominee carried it by 28 points. It is now a D+12 PVI district. There's an essentially 0% chance that a Republican could win this.

District 2 changes in shape but not partisanship. It is 30% white and 61% black, 34% white to 61% black in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 34 points, and is a D+16 PVI district.

District 3, then, becomes an ugly gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans one fairly safe district. It is 49% white and 35% black, 55% white to 36% black in VAP, went for the Republican Presidential nominee by 2 points, and is a R+4 PVI district. It isn't quite safe, but it's pretty close.

Is the second map required under the VRA?

There are three majority-white districts on the DC city council (assume that's the relevant point of reference), and one plurality-white one, out of eight total, and the at-large seats are held 3/5 by white people, making for an overall council that is majority (7/13) white, so the issue hasn't arisen. I think the city council was majority white or close to it even when DC was more like 70% black.

Is there anywhere besides Mississippi where this might be a possibility? Louisiana maybe? California someday?

There are a lot of steps I feel to get to this outcome, but it is a logical one. First said state can't be just 50% AA, it has to be something around 60% so that a case for white suppression can be justified. Then you probably need a supreme court case that will accept the argument to extend the VRA in cases where one non-white group possesses a commanding majority.

In the case of the SW states, it also probably requires Hispanics to not be integrated into the collective american definition of 'White' by then, in a similar vein to how Irish, Italians, and Slavs were in the 20th century. The only demographic group that has avoided cultural integration historically are African Americans, so perhaps this case will only ever end up applying to various regions of the deep south.

Is this even required?  Section 4(f)(2) of the VRA lists the classes afforded Section 2 protections, and Whites are not among them.  It's for this reason that majority-Jewish congressional districts don't have to be drawn in New York, or majority-LGBT city council districts in San Franciso, for example.

Also, it could be argued that White voters don't meet the second prong of the Giles test as they aren't a "politically cohesive" group.

White voters definitely aren't a politically cohesive group in the nation at large, but in MS in particular they are. They vote nearly 90-10 Republican and could become more polarized if MS becomes majority-black.

where are u getting the pvis? or are you assuming blacks stay uniformly democratic for the next 40 years

The numbers assume similar partisanship, yes.

Well, sometimes after 2050 whites will become a minority in US, so - about 2100 VRA will be used mostly to "protect" them, i think, as former minorities will not need a protection anymore. So - yes, and in number of states. It's another matter, that no one of us will see that.

Trying to think of the present and not the future, some candidates may include

New Mexico: 56% Hispanic (white and non white), 28% Non Hispanic white. Interestingly all 3 congressional seats are reported as at least plurality white, so I imagine they are also counting hispanic whites? Would those count towards VRA purposes?

Hawaii: It's 39% asian, 24% mixed, 25% white apparently as of now. Could you draw a majority, or even plurality white seat in Hawaii?

California: In theory it should have them already right? It's 39% Hispanic and 38% non Hispanic white. Or would Hispanics need to be a majority instead of a plurality for VRA districts to be required?

Looking at territories, there are some who might have to for their territorial/state legislatures (I imagine all would be at large seats except PR). Puerto Rico is what, 90% hispanic? So it certainly isn't getting a VRA seat (and even if it were, it would probably be for black Puerto Ricans)

The US Virgin Islands are 76% black, 16% white, 18% hispanic. So depending on the size of the legislature, maybe 1 white and 1 hispanic seat might be necessary?

Guam is 7% white, American Samoa is 1% white and the Mariana islands are 2% white, so they certainly aren't getting any white VRA seats.

DC might need VRA seats for the city council (or if it becomes a state, the legislature)

So, TL;DR: New Mexico seems like the most promising candidate in the short run. In the long run, Mississippi and maybe California?

Decided to draw a pseudo-VRA New Mexico map to try my theory. Using Voting Age population:

()

Seat 1 (blue): 49% hispanic, 41% white, 5% native American (D+15)
Seat 2 (green): 58% white, 34% hispanic, 3% black, 3% native (R+8)
Seat 3 (purple): 44% hispanic, 37% white, 17% native American (D+4)

According to VRA, NM at large is 45% white, 42% hispanic on voting age population, but 41% white and 46% hispanic overall. So this was 100% unnecessary today, but maybe in the future a white VRA seat will be required?

It's unlikely that any southeastern state could be sued over this, because their legislatures are majority-white and there isn't a large racial gap. It's completely plausible that white candidates could be elected in majority-hispanic districts (for instance, Jim Costa and Zoe Lofgren).

There are a couple prerequisites for this to happen.
1. The state must be majority a specific race or ethnicity.
2. The state must have a large white minority.
3. Both ethnicities must practice racial bloc voting consistently so a white candidate can't be elected in a majority nonwhite district and vice-versa.
4. The legislature must be consistently majority non-white.

New Mexico has a small racial voting gap and a majority-white legislature, so no VRA seat is required.

Hawaii has a negative racial voting gap and a very weird legislature, so no VRA seat is required.

California has a small racial voting gap and a majority-white legislature, so no VRA seat is required.

These conditions don't seem possible in the Southwest because Southwest whites are relatively Democratic and D-trending. The Deep South is the only place with the level of racial polarization and consistent ethnic identity for this to be plausible.

If it happens, I would think the test case would come out of inland California in the 2031 or maybe even the 2021 round of redistricting, not some hypothetical mid 21st century Mississippi.  However, SCOTUS appears to be inches away from ruling that the VRA doesn't apply to redistricting as it is, and one more Republican appointee would almost assure that.

Why though? Doesn't VRA facilitate Dem packs even when the GOP is out of power?

Except whites in California are very Dem-leaning, unless you're suggesting either they will become majority Republican or California becomes majority Republican.

Locally, in the eastern CA districts they are quite Republican.

One place where CA could see this test is the south Joaquin Valley/Grapevine region south of Fresno but north of LA. Outside of the Fresno city, this region behaves like the deep south with Hispanics near uniformly Dem and Whites near uniformly Rep. However, because Hispanics are under-registered, it would have to be a long time until this region is both minority white by Pop and registered VAP.

This isn't the point you're making, but I want to call out that it's not realistic to expect Mississippi's current governing group to peacefully hand over power if we reach a point where African-American voters outnumber white voters. Consider everything we have seen in states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas where a diverse coalition that favors Democrats has risen and the incumbent party has lost its damn mind through gerrymandering, poll taxes, and voter purges. Mississippi would have minority white rule for decades unless the federal government / Supreme Court forces changes.

What about Hawaii? The lowest white population of any state (about 1/4).

But are whites even a compact minority in any part of Hawaii, or are they fully integrated with Asians and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders? Are their candidates of choice that much different? If they're fully integrated or they share the same candidates of choice, it wouldn't be necessary to make a VRA district (if the VRA applied to whites).

White voters currently vote to the left of non-white voters in much of Hawaii.

As we said earlier, there needs to be a difference in political opinion between the two groups. Which is why a White VRA would probably only rise in the South, where whites and Blacks vote 90% for two different parties, rather then anywhere else.

maybe Republicans need to get clever and find a way to stop the demographics from flipping.